tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post115067773972381086..comments2015-03-31T13:08:09.316-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: St. Paul's Argument From Nature Against Homosexuality (Romans 1)Dave Armstronghttps://plus.google.com/115516270318198347148noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61885853126107894102013-09-25T04:58:31.863-04:002013-09-25T04:58:31.863-04:00I forgot to mention: notice that Saint Paul procla...I forgot to mention: notice that Saint Paul proclaimed religious equality not just between men and women, but also between free people and slaves. Yet in practice that only meant that women and slaves could take part in Christian sacraments. It took more than 1800 years for the Church to decide that slavery as an institution was politically unacceptable. That shows to what degree religion and politics can be kept separate when that suits the ruling classes.Contentioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07298871524865838090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79513321977667708372013-09-25T04:42:40.704-04:002013-09-25T04:42:40.704-04:00Equality has nothing to do with individual moral j...Equality has nothing to do with individual moral judgements, either mine or yours. Equality is not just proclaming &quot;you&#39;re all equal&quot; like Saint Paul does without putting that principle to facts. Equality is a goal of political life and is about letting people decide by themselves on things that affect them. If men like you could get pregnant like women, then passing bans on abortion by simple majorities would be fine and fair, but in our real world whenever men have a saying on women&#39;s bodies and turn them into incubators, then there can&#39;t be equality.<br /><br />Inequality is even more visible in an institution like the Catholic Church where women are explicitly excluded from priesthood. Then you have an entirely male body deciding what good women should be. There&#39;s the same contradiction in celibate men dictating what sex life within marriage should be like or whether divorce should be legal. Again, the issue here is democratic representation, not morality.<br /><br />Finally, bans on gay marriage too are based on inequality to an even clearer degree. There&#39;s inequality when majorities set life conditions for minorities.<br /><br />Do you dislike this idea of equality? Well, it only shows that religion and politics should be kept separate because they have completely different principles, which is something that many Christians seem unable to understand. Unfortunately for them religion is all about dictating to other people what they&#39;re allowed to do. This Christian Sharia has no place whatsoever in our modern world. You cannot win over people to your religion through laws and legal enforcements, but through moral arguments. <br /><br />And by the way, appealing to nature is not a moral argument. With that you could justify murder just as well, like the Nazis did. Nature completely ignores human morality.Contentioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07298871524865838090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80672271306030514552013-09-24T13:04:09.699-04:002013-09-24T13:04:09.699-04:00How is it &quot;equality&quot; to murder your own ...How is it &quot;equality&quot; to murder your own child in the womb? That has nothing to do with &quot;equality&quot; and everything to do with sin and selfishness and complete irresponsibility for one&#39;s free actions.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90223769191533811052013-09-24T12:10:19.698-04:002013-09-24T12:10:19.698-04:00Dave, sublimity is great, but then you have people...Dave, sublimity is great, but then you have people like Maximus, trying to draw rules for everyday behaviour straight from the Bible. And then the only possible reading is clear: men have the right to dictate behaviour and dress codes to women (read the burka, bans on abortion or whatever applies to specific religions, countries and eras). I wouldn&#39;t call that &#39;equality&#39;.<br /><br />Moreover, he himself acknowledged that his own arguments about nature didn&#39;t persuade even himself, so that his only reason was worldly tradition or &#39;because I say so&#39;: <i>If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.</i>Contentioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07298871524865838090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75461218267006648942013-09-24T11:59:38.565-04:002013-09-24T11:59:38.565-04:00Paul doesn&#39;t teach inequality of the sexes. To...Paul doesn&#39;t teach inequality of the sexes. To the contrary, he states, <br /><br />Galatians 3:27-28 (RSV) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. <br /><br />The Bible teaches gender role differentiation, but not inequality. <br /><br />But of course, that is a far too sublime, profound concept for our secular, &quot;PC&quot; society to grasp.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8429396149167648992013-09-24T11:45:49.044-04:002013-09-24T11:45:49.044-04:00Maximus, if &quot;women are naturally possessed of...Maximus, if &quot;women are naturally possessed of sensual beauty ... to attract the opposite sex&quot; then how come not all of them are lesbians attracting each other? This is not a joke. Lesbian feminists seriously argue that enforced heterosexuality and the myth of romantic love are the key means for patriarchy to dominate women and make them dependent on men. <br /><br />In my own opinion, &quot;beauty is in the eye of the beholder&quot;, not something objective. Otherwise, how could any woman be attracted to men who, according to you, are uglier than her?<br /><br />You missed Saint Paul&#39;s point and mine in quoting him. Pauline Christianity is a religion made by straight males like him to serve the interests of straight males like you, by naturalizing your desires and denaturalizing other people&#39;s. He himself says that woman and men are inherently unequal because women came from men, i.e., they&#39;re secondary. I think no woman possessed of any self-respect would accept your brand of Christianity.Contentioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07298871524865838090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-51896174885717973632013-09-19T22:15:24.555-04:002013-09-19T22:15:24.555-04:00Thanks so much for your comment. I appreciate it.Thanks so much for your comment. I appreciate it.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-33914742526513916642013-09-19T22:09:45.797-04:002013-09-19T22:09:45.797-04:00Well said Dave. What you say was common knowledge ...Well said Dave. What you say was common knowledge among rational, civilized people for two millennia and yet today to utter such words of clarity and sanity is to be called homophobic or reactionary. As H.H. Pope Benedict XVI emphasized repeatedly, Christianity is a religion of reason.<br /><br />Turning to the complaint of <i>En Seikou</i>: The point St. Paul is making here is that women are naturally possessed of sensual beauty. They have been made that way to attract the opposite sex. Hence in every sane civilization women have dressed modestly and covered up. Is it not inappropriate that a woman enter a church or temple to pray flaunting her sensual beauty? Of course it is. There is a time and a place for everything. That is the meaning of religion. And to be religious is to seek to discern what is appropriate behaviour in any given situation. <br /><br />Thank you Dave!maximushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15999964734847276089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-19049017115807383382012-04-10T19:18:21.325-04:002012-04-10T19:18:21.325-04:00God judges each person by what they know (and do)....God judges each person by what they know (and do). I think we all inherently know that sexual sin (outside of marriage) is wrong, until we give into it and it overtakes us and changes our judgment. <br /><br />It&#39;s all explained in Romans 1 or 2. If you believe there is such a thing as hell, why in the world would you want to end up there? You either believe it exists or not. <br /><br />If it does, there is also a God Who can give you or anyone the grace and power to overcome any sin that would cause you to end up damned for eternity.<br /><br />It comes down, then, to the question of whether God exists, what He demands, and what He is like.<br /><br />I&#39;m here to proclaim that God is Love: He will save anyone who comes to Him and is willing to follow His commands and devote their lives to Him.<br /><br />Sin will never make anyone happy or joyful or fulfilled in the long run.<br /><br />Homosexual inclination or orientation, however (just like heterosexual desire), is not sinful in and of itself, as long as it is not acted upon.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43798958845254951992012-04-10T18:53:00.982-04:002012-04-10T18:53:00.982-04:00Finally a more or less comprehensive explanation, ...Finally a more or less comprehensive explanation, thank you! Technical question though. Suppose I&#39;m not Christian, St Paul holds no authority over me, I am fully aware that God will put me in Hell no matter what, it wouldn&#39;t make much difference if I were a lesbian, right?yoonzenahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16434033316737157208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-19369995351958489132011-07-21T14:15:09.052-04:002011-07-21T14:15:09.052-04:002 Corinthians 11:7-9, 13-16
7 A man ought not to c...<b>2 Corinthians 11:7-9, 13-16</b><br /><i>7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.<br /> 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not <b>the very nature of things</b> teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God</i><br /><br />Shall we then undo the doings of Women’s Liberation then? Or decree legal and illegal hairdoes? All in the name of &quot;natural law&quot;, or rather tradition?En Seikouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07298871524865838090noreply@blogger.com